Hashem v. D'Angelo

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

July 28, 2017

SABA HASHEM, individually, and as a member of, and derivatively on behalf of, D'Angelo and Hashem, LLC, Plaintiff,v.STEPHEN D'ANGELO, D'ANGELO LAW GROUP, LLC, and D'ANGELO AND HASHEM, LLC., Defendants.

AMENDED MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Indira
Talwani United States District Judge

The
underlying case arises from a dispute between two former law
partners regarding, inter alia, the assets of their
law firm, D'Angelo and Hashem, LLC
(“D&H”). Before this court is Jennifer M.
Carrion's Motion to Intervene [#26] as a matter of
right under Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Ms. Carrion, a former employee of D&H, is a
judgment creditor of Hashem and D&H, following a November
22, 2011, jury verdict finding them liable for pregnancy
discrimination. She seeks to pursue cross-claims against all
parties in the underlying action. Defendants Stephen
D'Angelo and D'Angelo Law Group oppose the
motion.[1]

For the
following reasons, Ms. Carrion's Motion to
Intervene [#26] is ALLOWED.

I.
Standard

Rule
24(a)(2) allows intervention as a matter of right if a
would-be intervenor meets four requirements:

1. The application must be timely . . .;

2. The applicant must claim an interest relating to the
property or transaction which is the subject of the action;

3. Disposition of the action may, as a practical matter,
impair or impede that applicant's ability to protect the
interest; and

4. The applicant must show that the interest will not be
adequately represented by existing parties.

Conservation
Law Found. of New Eng., Inc. v. Mosbacher, 966 F.2d 39,
41 (1st Cir. 1992). A would-be intervenor who does not meet
any one of these requirements cannot intervene as a matter of
right. See Travelers Indem. Co. v. Dingwell, 884
F.2d 629, 637 (1st Cir. 1989). The “imprecision”
of Rule 24(a)(2)'s individual requirements mandates,
however, that they “‘be read not discretely, but
together, ' and always with a commonsense view of the
overall litigation.” Pub. Serv. Co. of N.H. v.
Patch, 136 F.3d 197, 204 (1st Cir. 1998) (quoting
United States v. Hooker Chems. & Plastics Corp.,
749 F.2d 968, 983 (2d Cir.1984)). “Because small
differences in fact patterns can significantly affect the
outcome, the very nature of a Rule 24(a)(2) inquiry limits
the utility of comparisons among published opinions.”
Id.

II.
Analysis

Since
there is no dispute as to the timeliness of the motion, the
court considers the remaining three requirements for
intervention under Rule 24(a)(2).

A.
Interest in the Property or Transaction

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;To
claim an interest relating to the property or transaction
which is the subject of the action, a would-be intervenor
must show that he or she has a &ldquo;significantly
protectable interest.&rdquo; Id. at 205 (quoting
Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517, 531
(1971)). &ldquo;Potential economic harm to a would-be
intervenor is a factor that warrants serious consideration in
the interest inquiry.&rdquo; Id. ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.